Ms.Upasana Pahuja, Ms.Mehak Chaudhary and Mr.Pranav Saha, Advocates v. DR. MOHD NAJEEB

Judgment

1. By way of present revision petition filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, ‘DRC Act’), the petitioners seek to set aside the order dated 05.09.2024 passed by learned ARC-02, Central, Tis hazari Courts, Delhi in Eviction Petition No. RC/ARC No.436/2021 (hereinafter, ‘impugned judgment’) whereby their application seeking leave to defend came to be dismissed. Notably, the respondent/landlord had filed the eviction petition under 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act in respect of property being Ward No. VI, municipal number 1149-50 (old. no.802A), Gali Chhatta Ibrahim, Haveli Hisamuddin Haider, Ballimaran, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘subject premises’). RC.REV. 398/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Date:02.04.2025 15:09:07

2. Respondent claimed to be owner and landlord of subject premises. He claimed that the subject premises were purchased by his parents from Custodian of Evacuee Property Department by virtue of Conveyance Deed dated 24.11.1962, whereafter, the same was let out to the father of the petitioners for residential purposes.

3. The petitioners, in their application for leave to defend averred that there was no bona fide requirement on part of the respondent to seek eviction from the subject premises as they also had availability of alternate accommodation. They further contended that eviction could not be maintained for partial eviction and claimed trial. In this context, reference was made to previous proceedings between the parties. In other words, it was contended that triable issues existed which would disentitle the respondent from obtaining an eviction order.

4. The impugned order records that there was no challenge to respondent’s ownership or existence of landlord-tenant relationship between

the parties. SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT

5. Before this Court, the impugned order is assailed primarily on two grounds. Firstly, it is contended that the subject premises comprises of ground and first floors, however, the eviction petition was filed only with respect to the ground floor. Reliance is placed on the orders passed in previous proceedings between the parties where the respondent himself had claimed single tenancy for both ground and first floors. Reliance is also placed on decisions to contend that proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) cannot be maintained for partial eviction.1 Secondly, it is contended that the 1 Shori Lal v. Ram Rakha Mal, reported as 1971 All India Rent Control Journal 424; S. Sanyal v. Gian Chand, reported as 1967 SCC OnLine SC 307; Arjun Singh v. Sarita Rathore, reported as 2012 SCC RC.REV. 398/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Date:02.04.2025 15:09:07 respondent deliberately did not disclose the availability of alternate accommodation being Property No.60, Gali No.2, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi where Mohd. Amir-brother of the respondent, is residing. Though the said fact was urged before ld. ARC, the documents in support could not be produced. Later, the petitioners have obtained a copy of the Sale Deed dated 24.02.2012 concerning the said property. Lastly, it is contended that though the respondents have claimed that the accommodation used by them was in dilapidated condition, no supporting document was placed on record.

6. Per contra, the respondent countered the submissions on the plea of partial eviction by stating that the petitioners’ occupation is confined only to the ground floor and that the first floor is in occupation of Mohd. Yasin and Mohd. Nafees, who separately pay rent to the respondent against proper receipts. Even if judicial proceedings of the years 1964 and 1975 are to be considered, it is submitted that the same are irrelevant as with passage of time, the extent of petitioners’ tenancy has changed. In absence of documents to the contrary, the respondent’s case as to separate tenancies should sustain. Reliance is placed on Mahesh Kumar v. Pritam Chand (since deceased) through LRs;2 Krishan Lal Marwah v. Sharvan Kumar Marwah3 and Kanta Rani v. Kishan Lal.4 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

7. It is a settled position in law that while deciding an application for leave the defend, the Rent Controller must examine only whether a prima facie case is made out by the tenant raising issues which may be triable in OnLine Del 4135 and Santosh Jain v. Suresh Chand Bhargava, reported as 1998 SCC OnLine Del 30. 2 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4573. 3 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1276. 4 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7515. RC.REV. 398/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Date:02.04.2025 15:09:07 nature, irrespective of the final outcomes of the pleas so raised. Therefore, at the stage of leave to defend, the threshold to be crossed by the tenant is rather low and there is no need for the tenant to lead incontrovertible evidence proving the same; that is to be determined at the stage of trial. In terms of the burden placed on the landlord, while a presumption may exist in their favour as to the bona fide need claimed, once an averment is made to that effect and landlord-tenant relationship is established, it is still the responsibility of the landlord to make out an apparent case of sufficient and reasonable need as well as an absence of alternate accommodation to meet the same. Any material doubt raised as to those issues become triable in nature, warranting grant of leave to defend in favour of the tenant. Needless to state, such an issue cannot be frivolous in nature or raised for the sake of raising a defence, and must be something tenable, even if it might ultimately collapse at trial. [Ref: Charan Dass Duggal v. Brahma Nand;5 Santosh Kumar v. Bhai Mool Singh6 and Precision Steel & Engg. Works & Anr. v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal7].

8. In other words, while at the stage of leave to defend, the tenant need not establish a fool proof case fit for rejection of the petition for eviction in totality, the grounds raised must also not be mere assertions and must raise a triable issue such that gives rise to a necessity for it to be tested at trial for a proper and just adjudication. [Ref: Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua8]

9. Having established the threshold to be crossed by the tenant at the stage of considering an application for leave to defend, it is prudent to examine the contentions raised by the petitioners in the present case in that